8 F. Supp. 2d 43 - In Re Boston Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 37 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc. (2009), Albert Oran v. John Stafford (2000)
4 federal appellate · 37 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 781
Relies on Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Shaw v. Digital Equipment Corp. · Shapiro v. UJB Financial Corp. · Roeder v. Alpha Industries, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A 10b-5 plaintiff must allege details of defendants’ alleged fraudulent involvement, including specifics as to what defendants had knowledge of and when. To satisfy this requirement, complaints typically identify internal reports, memoranda, or the like, and allege both the contents of those documents and defendants’ possession of them at the relevant time.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Allegations that ultimately are clearly intended to relate to one another are strewn about the Complaint in such a way that their relatedness is apparent only after repeated review of the over fifty page pleading. [But] .., the burden [of matching statement with omission] should not be the Court's.”). 19 . The Third Circuit recently summarized pre-Reform Act law on this point: Allegations that a securities-fraud defendant, because of his position within the company, “must have known” a statement was false or misleading are”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Case after 10b-5 case has been decided by a statement-by-statement analysis in which the inquiry made is restricted to the immediate context of each statement — namely, the balance of what was said on the particular occasion, and the immediate circumstances in which the particular statement was made.... It is not the law that a 10b-5 complaint is to be judged on the basis of the general flavor derived from an issuer’s collective statements over a long period of time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.